Noname manuscript No. - arXiv · 3 Stable space-time nite element method Let K h be a decomposition...

Noname manuscript No.(will be inserted by the editor)

A Stable Space-Time Finite Element Method forParabolic Evolution Problems

Stephen Edward Moore

In loving memory of Professor Francis Allotey

Received: date / Accepted: date

Abstract This paper is concerned with the analysis of a new stable space-time finite element method (FEM) for the numerical solution of parabolicevolution problems in moving spatial computational domains. The discretebilinear form is elliptic on the FEM space with respect to a discrete energynorm. This property together with a corresponding boundedness property,consistency and approximation results for the FEM spaces yield an a prioridiscretization error estimate with respect to the discrete norm. Finally, weconfirm the theoretical results with numerical experiments in spatial movingdomains.

Keywords finite element method · space-time · parabolic evolution problem ·moving spatial computational domains · a priori discretization error estimates

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000) 65M12 · 65M60

1 Introduction

Parabolic initial-boundary value problems arise in many practical applications.For instance, heat conduction and diffusion processes but also evolution pro-cesses in life and social sciences can be modeled by parabolic evolution prob-lems with a more general elliptic part, i.e, with convection-diffusion-reactionterms or even non-linear terms. The standard discretization methods in timeand space are based on time-stepping methods combined with some spatialdiscretization technique like the finite element methods (FEM). The verticalmethod of lines discretizes first in space and then in time, whereas in thehorizontal method of lines, the discretization starts with respect to the time

Katholische Hochschulgemeinde der Diozese Linz,Petrinumstrasse 12/8/D220, A-4040, Linz.Tel.: +43-660-6064199,E-mail: [email protected]

arX

iv:1

706.

0706

5v2

[m

ath.

NA

] 1

1 M

ay 2

018

2 Stephen Edward Moore

variable followed by the space variable, see e.g. [19]. Also time discontinuousGalerkin methods have been presented and analyzed for linear and non-linearparabolic initial boundary value problems [7]. We mention also space-timewavelet methods [15] and other space-time schemes including the p and hp intime versions of hp−finite element method to parabolic problems, see e.g., [1]and [2] respectively. This was followed by hp dG time-stepping combined withFEM in space, see [14].

Another approach to discretization of parabolic evolution problems are thespace-time methods. The approach is known to be a natural way of numeri-cal discretization for problems requiring deforming and moving meshes. Thespace-time schemes allow for discretization in time and space simultaneouslyand are also applicable even for unstructured meshes see, e.g., [6]. In thisapproach, the time variable t is considered as just another variable xd+1 ifx1, . . . , xd are the spatial variables. In this sense, the time derivative acts as astrong convection term in the direction xd+1, see e.g. [17,18,3,13]. Recently,conforming space-time FEM approximations have been studied and presentedin [16]. By means of an upwind-stabilized single-patch space-time Isogeometricanalysis (IgA), a stable space-time scheme was developed in [10] for fixed andmoving spatial computational domain. For Cp−1− basis functions, we derivedoptimal approximation estimates for fixed and moving spatial computationaldomains with p ≥ 1 and p ≥ 2 respectively. For multi-patch deforming com-putational domains, we further derived a space-time multi-patch where dGmethodology was employed in space and in time, see [12] and also [11]. Thespace-time approach allows for a posteriori error estimates, see e.g., [9].

In this paper, we generalize the results of moving spatial computationaldomains from [10, Section 5] to the continuous basis functions i.e. C0, case. Byusing a time upwind test function, we derive a discrete bilinear form ah(·, ·) :V0h × V0h → R that is elliptic on V0h with respect to a discrete norm ‖ · ‖h.The boundedness of the bilinear form is asserted in a product space Vh,∗×Vh,where the vector space Vh,∗ has an associated norm ‖·‖h,∗. Using the ellipticityand boundedness results together with consistency results, we derive a prioridiscretization error estimates in the discrete norm ‖ · ‖h. Finally, we presentnumerical experiments that demonstrate the feasibility of proposed scheme.

The outline of the article is as follows: In Section 2, we present the standardspace-time variational scheme for the parabolic problem. Then, in Section 3,we present the new stable space-time finite element scheme. Section 4 is de-voted to the derivation of a priori discretization error estimates. In Section 5,we present and discuss numerical experiments. We conclude the article withremarks on the scheme.

2 Space-time variational formulation

Let Q ⊂ Rd+1, d ∈ 1, 2, 3 be a bounded and Lipschitz space-time domain.Let α = (α1, ..., αd) be a multi-index with non-negative integers α1, ..., αdand |α| = α1 + . . . + αd. For the multi-index α, let ∂αx u := ∂|α|u/∂xα =

A Stable Space-Time FEM of Parabolic Evolution Equations 3

∂|α|u/∂xα11 . . . ∂xαd

d denote the spatial derivatives with ∂itu := ∂iu/∂ti as timederivatives. We denote the space of square-integrable functions by L2(Q) anda corresponding norm ‖ · ‖L2(Q). For positive integers sx, st, we define theSobolev space Hsx,st(Q) = u ∈ L2(Q) : ∂αx u ∈ L2(Q),∀αwith 0 ≤ |α| ≤sx, ∂

itu ∈ L2(Q), i = 0, . . . , st, see e.g., [8].

We consider a linear parabolic initial-boundary value problem: find u :Q→ R such that

∂tu−∆u = f in Q, u = 0 on Σ ∪Σ0, (1)

posed in the space-time domain Q := Ω(t) × [0, T ], where ∆ is the Laplaceoperator, ∂t denotes the partial time derivative, f is a given source function,T is the final time, Q := Ω(t)×(0, T ), where Ω(t) ⊂ Rd for d = 1, 2, 3, denotesthe deforming domain Σ = ∂Ω(t)×(0, T ), Σ0 = Ω(0)×0, ΣT = Ω(T )×Twith the boundary ∂Q := Σ ∪Σ0 ∪ΣT .

The space-time variational formulation of (1) reads : find u ∈ H1,00,0 (Q) such

that

a(u, v) = `(v) ∀v ∈ H1,1

0,0(Q), (2)

with the bilinear and linear forms given by

a(u, v) = −∫

Q

u∂tvdxdt+

∫

Q

∇xu · ∇xvdxdt and `(v) =

∫

Q

fvdxdt, (3)

where the trial and test spaces are defined by H1,00,0 (Q) = u ∈ L2(Q) : ∇xu ∈

[L2(Q)]d, u = 0 onΣ andu = 0 onΣ0 and H1,1

0,0(Q) = u ∈ L2(Q) : ∇xu ∈

[L2(Q)]d, ∂tu ∈ L2(Q), u = 0 onΣ, andu = 0 onΣT . We denote the gradientwith respect to the spatial variables by ∇xu = (∂u/∂x1, . . . , ∂u/∂xd)

>. Thevariational problem (2) is known to have a unique weak solution, see e.g., [8].

3 Stable space-time finite element method

Let Kh be a decomposition of the space-time domain Q ⊂ Rd+1, d = 1, 2, 3 intonon-degenerate (d+ 1)−simplices i.e. triangles if d = 1 or tetrahedra if d = 2.Let the diameter of the simplex be denoted by hK and let h be defined by h =maxhK : K ∈ Kh. It is assumed that the family of triangulations is quasi-uniform, which means that there exists a positive constant Cu, independentof h such that for all triangulations Kh, every simplex K ∈ Kh satisfies

hK ≤ h ≤ CuhK , for all K ∈ Kh. (4)

Let Pp be the set of all polynomials of degree less or equal to p, i.e. degree≤ p. Then Vh is the set of all continuous and piecewise polynomial functionson Q, i.e.

Vh :=vh ∈ C0(Q) : vh|K ∈ Pp(K), ∀K ∈ Kh

. (5)


Finally, we define discrete space-time space as follows

V0h := Vh ∩H1,10,0 (Q). (6)

For every two neighboring triangles or tetrahedra Ki,Kj ∈ Kh, the interiorfacet Fij is given by Fij := Ki∩Kj , i 6= j, if the set forms a (d+1)−dimensionalmanifold, see Figure 1. We denote the set of all interior facets of the decom-position Kh by FI that is FI :=

(⋃Ni=1 ∂Ki

)\ ∂Q.

Ki Kj(

ni;x

ni;t

)

Σ0

ΣT

ΣΣ

0

t

x

Q

Fig. 1 A representation of the interior facet Fij (left) and a description of space-timedomain (right).

Definition 1 (Jump, average, upwind) Let Fij ∈ FI be an interior facetwith the outer unit normal vector ni = (ni,x, ni,t)

> with respect to Ki. For agiven, sufficiently smooth scalar and vector-valued functions v and q, we willdenote by vi,qi the trace of the function v and q on Fij , and the jump acrossthe interior facets FI is defined by

JvK := vini + vjnj , JqK := qi · ni + qj · nj ,The jump in space direction is given by

JvKx := vini,x + vjnj,x, JqKx := qi · ni,x + qj · nj,x,whereas the jump in time direction is defined by

JvKt := vini,t + vjnj,t, JqKt := qini,t + qjnj,t,

The average of a function v on the interior facet Fij is nothing but

v :=1

2(vi + vj), q :=

1

2(qi + qj),

and the upwind in time direction is given by

vup :=

vi for ni,t ≥ 0,

vj for ni,t < 0,qup :=

qi for ni,t ≥ 0,

qj for ni,t < 0,(7)

whereas the downwind in time direction is given by

vdown :=

vj for ni,t ≥ 0,

vi for ni,t < 0,qdown :=

qj for ni,t ≥ 0,

qi for ni,t < 0.(8)


The next lemma provides us with some elementary formulas that are necessaryfor the derivation of our variational space-time FEM scheme.

Lemma 1 Let Fij ∈ FI be an interface, and let u and v be sufficiently smoothfunctions on the interface. Then the following formulas hold:

JuvKx = uJvKx + vJuKx, (9)

JuvKt = uupJvKt + vdownJuKt. (10)

Proof See e.g. [11]. utThe derivation of the scheme is as follows: we multiply our model problem(1) with a test function of the form vh + θh∂tvh for an arbitrary vh ∈ V0h ⊂H1,1

0,0 (Q) and a positive constant θ which will be determined later,

∫

Q

f(vh + θh∂tvh) dxdt =

∫

Q

(∂tu(vh + θh∂tvh)−∆uvh − θh∆u∂tvh

)dxdt.

(11)

Integration by parts with respect to x in the second term of the bilinear formon the right-hand side of (11) gives∫

Q

f(vh + θh∂tvh) dxdt

=

∫

Q

(∂tu(vh + θh∂tvh) +∇xu · ∇xvh − θh∆u∂tvh

)dxdt−

∫

∂Q

nx · ∇xu vh ds,

where using the facts that vh ∈ V0h and nx are zero on Σ0 and ΣT yields∫

Q

f(vh + θh∂tvh) dxdt

=

∫

Q

(∂tu(vh + θh∂tvh) +∇xu · ∇xvh − θh∆u∂tvh

)dxdt.

Concerning the last term, we sum over each element and apply an integrationby parts with respect to the spatial direction

−∫

Q

∆u∂tvh dxdt = −∑

K∈Kh

∫

K

∆u∂tvh dxdt

=∑

K∈Kh

∫

K

∇xu · ∇x∂tvh dxdt−∑

K∈Kh

∫

∂K

nx · ∇xu∂tvh ds

=∑

K∈Kh

∫

K

∇xu · ∇x∂tvh dxdt−∑

Fij∈FI

∫

Fij

J∇xu∂tvhKx ds−∫

Σ

nx · ∇xu∂tvh ds.

By an integration by parts with respect to the time direction for the first termabove and using the fact that vh ∈ V0h, we obtain

−∫

Q

∆u∂tvh dxdt = −∑

K∈Kh

∫

K

∂t∇xu · ∇xvh dxdt+∑

Fij∈FI

∫

Fij

J∇xu · ∇xvhKt ds


+

∫

Σ∪ΣT

nt∇xu · ∇xvh ds−∑

Fij∈FI

∫

Fij

J∇xu∂tvhKx ds−∫

Σ

nx · ∇xu∂tvh ds.

Now, considering the terms on the interior facets Fij ∈ FI , we use the identities(9) and (10) from Lemma 1 to obtain

∑

Fij∈FI

∫

Fij

(J∇xu · ∇xvhKt − J∇xu∂tvhKx

)ds

=∑

Fij∈FI

∫

Fij

(∇xuup · J∇xvhKt + ∇xvhdown · J∇xuKt

− ∇xu · J∂tvhKx − ∂tvhJ∇xuKx)ds.

Assuming that our solution u belongs to H2(Q), the jumps of the derivativeof u are zero i.e. J∇xuKx = 0 and J∇xuKt = 0, thus yielding

∑

Fij∈FI

∫

Fij

J∇xu · ∇xvhKt − J∇xu∂tvhKx ds

=∑

Fij∈FI

∫

Fij

(∇xuup · J∇xvhKt − ∇xu · J∂tvhKx)ds.

Also, considering the terms on the boundary Σ, we have∫

Σ

∇xu ·(nt∇xvh − nx∂tvh

)ds = 0,

since (nt∇xvh − nx∂tvh) are the tangential derivatives of vh and vh = 0 on Σas discussed in [10]. Since the solution u is assumed to be smooth enough, wehave that J∂tuKx = 0. This enables us to add the consistent term

θh∑

Fij∈FI

∫

Fij

(∇xvh · J∂tuKx + δJ∂tuKx · J∂tvhKx

)ds, (12)

to the bilinear form where δ is a positive constant. Finally, we can write thevariational space-time FEM scheme as follows: find uh ∈ V0h such that

ah(uh, vh) = `h(vh) ∀vh ∈ V0h, (13)

where the bilinear form is given by

ah(uh, vh) =

∫

Q

(∂tuh(vh + θh∂tvh) +∇xu · ∇xvh

)dxdt

− θh∑

K∈Kh

∫

K

∂t∇xuh · ∇xvh dxdt+ θh

∫

ΣT

∇xuh · ∇xvh ds

+ θh∑

Fij∈FI

∫

Fij

(∇xuhup · J∇xvhKt − ∇xuh · J∂tvhKx + ∇xvh · J∂tuhKx


+ δJ∂tuhKx · J∂tvhKx)ds (14)

and the linear form

`h(vh) =

∫

Q

f (vh + θh∂tvh) dxdt. (15)

Remark 1 Although, we have considered homogeneous Dirichlet boundary andinitial conditions, it is also possible to consider other boundary conditions in-cluding Neumann and Robin boundary conditions as well as non-homogeneousDirichlet boundary conditions. Particularly, the weak imposition of the Dirich-let and initial boundary conditions will be an interesting consideration.

Theorem 1 If the solution u ∈ H1,00,0 (Q) of the variational problem (2) belongs

to H2(Q) then the solution satisfies the consistency identity

ah(u, vh) = `h(vh), ∀ vh ∈ V0h. (16)

An immediate consequence of consistency is the Galerkin orthogonality prop-erty

ah(u− uh, vh) = 0, ∀vh ∈ V0h. (17)

Due to the assumptions on the mesh elements, the following Lemmata thatare required for the analysis of the scheme hold. We refer the interested readerto [4] for the proofs.

Lemma 2 Let K ∈ Kh. Then the scaled trace inequality

‖v‖L2(∂K) ≤ Ctrh−1/2K

(‖v‖L2(K) + hK |v|H1(K)

), (18)

holds for all v ∈ H1(K), where hK denotes the mesh size of K and Ctr is apositive constant.

Lemma 3 Let K be an arbitrary mesh element from Kh. Then the inverseinequalities

‖∇xvh‖L2(K) ≤ Cinv,1h−1K ‖vh‖L2(K), (19)

‖vh‖L2(∂K) ≤ Cinv,0h−1/2K ‖vh‖L2(K), (20)

hold for all vh ∈ Vh, where Cinv,1 and Cinv,0 are positive constants.

To show the coercivity of the bilinear form, we will need the followinglemma.

Lemma 4 Let Fij ∈ FI be an interior facet and v ∈ V0h be a function. Thenthe following identity holds:

vupJvKt −1

2Jv2Kt =

1

2|ni,t|JvK2. (21)


Proof See e.g. [11] or [12]. ut

Next, we show that the discrete bilinear form (14) is V0h−coercive with respectto the mesh-dependent norm

‖vh‖h :=

(‖∇xvh‖2L2(Q) + θh‖∂tvh‖2L2(Q) +

1

2‖vh‖2L2(ΣT ) +

θh

2‖∇xvh‖2L2(ΣT )

+θh

2

∑

Fij∈FI

‖J∇xvhKt‖2L2(Fij)+ δθh

∑

Fij∈FI

‖J∂tvhKx‖2L2(Fij)

)1/2

. (22)

Remark 2 The equation above (22) is a norm. Indeed, if ‖vh‖h = 0 for somevh ∈ V0h, then ∇xvh = 0 and ∂tvh = 0 in Q, i.e., vh is a constant in Q.Furthermore, vh ∈ V0h implies that vh is zero on Σ and Σ0, i.e. this constantmust be zero. Therefore, vh = 0 in the whole space-time computational domainQ. The other norm axioms are trivial.

Lemma 5 Let θ > 0 be sufficiently small such that θ ≤ (C2inv,0C

2u)−1, where

Cinv,0 is chosen as in Lemma 3 and Cu as in Assumption (4). Then thediscrete bilinear form ah(·, ·) : V0h×V0h → R, defined by (14), is V0h−coercivewith respect to the norm ‖ · ‖h, i.e.

ah(vh, vh) ≥ µc‖vh‖2h, ∀vh ∈ V0h, (23)

with µc = 1/2.

Proof Let vh = uh in (14), then we get

ah(vh, vh) =

∫

Q

(∂tvhvh + θh(∂tvh)2 + |∇xvh|2

)dxdt+ θh

∫

ΣT

|∇xvh|2 ds

− θh∑

K∈Kh

∫

K

∂t∇xvh · ∇xvh dxdt+ θh∑

Fij∈FI

∫

Fij

∇xvhup · J∇xvhKt ds

− θh∑

Fij∈FI

∫

Fij

∇xvh · J∂tvhKx ds+ θh∑

Fij∈FI

∫

Fij

∇xvh · J∂tvhKx ds

+ δθh∑

Fij∈FI

∫

Fij

J∂tvhK2x ds.

Using Gauss’ theorem, we obtain

ah(vh, vh) =1

2

∫

Q

∂tv2h + θh‖∂tvh‖2L2(Q) + ‖∇xvh‖2L2(Q) + θh‖∇xvh‖2L2(ΣT )

− θh

2

∑

K∈Kh

∫

K

∂t|∇xvh|2 dxdt+ θh∑

Fij∈FI

∫

Fij


+ δθh∑

Fij∈FI

∫

Fij

J∂tvhK2 ds


=1

2

∫

∂Q

ntv2h + θh‖∂tvh‖2L2(Q) + ‖∇xvh‖2L2(Q) + θh‖∇xvh‖2L2(ΣT )

− θh

2

∑

K∈Kh

∫

K

∂t|∇xvh|2 dxdt+ θh∑

Fij∈FI

∫

Fij


+ δθh∑

Fij∈FI

‖J∂tvhKx‖2L2(Fij).

Rewriting the boundary terms such that ∂Q := Σ ∪ Σ0 ∪ ΣT and FI :=(⋃Ni=1 ∂Ki

)\ ∂Q with the interior facet Fij ⊂ FI and using vh = 0 on Σ0

yields

ah(vh, vh) =1

2

∫

ΣT

v2h ds+ θh‖∂tvh‖2L2(Q) + ‖∇xvh‖2L2(Q) + θh‖∇xvh‖2L2(ΣT )

− θh

2

∑

Fij∈FI

∫

Fij

J|∇xvh|2Kt ds−θh


− θh

2

∫

Σ

nt|∇xvh|2 ds+ θh∑

Fij∈FI

∫

Fij


+ δθh∑

Fij∈FI


Using identity (21) and the fact that vh ∈ V0h, we obtain

ah(vh, vh) =1

2‖vh‖2L2(ΣT ) + θh‖∂tvh‖2L2(Q) + ‖∇xvh‖2L2(Q) +

θh


− θh

2

∫

Σ

nt|∇xvh|2 ds+ θh∑

Fij∈FI

∫

Fij

(∇xvhup · J∇xvhKt ds−

1

2J|∇xvh|2Kt

)ds

+ δθh∑

Fij∈FI


=1


θh


− θh

2

∫

Σ

nt|∇xvh|2 ds+θh

2

∑

Fij∈FI

∫

Fij

|ni,t| (J|∇xvh|K)2 ds+ δθh∑

Fij∈FI


By using |ni,t| ≥ |ni,t|2 and Definition 1, we obtain

ah(vh, vh) ≥ 1


θh


− θh

2‖∇xvh‖2L2(Σ) +

θh

2

∑

Fij∈FI

‖J∇xvhKt‖2L2(Fij)+ δθh

∑

Fij∈FI


≥ ‖vh‖2h −θh

2‖∇xvh‖2L2(Σ). (24)


Now by applying (20) and the quasi-uniform assumption (4) to the term onΣ, we have

θh/2‖∇xvh‖2L2(Σ) ≤ θh/2C2inv,0C

2uh−1‖∇xvh‖2L2(Q) = (θC2

inv,0C2u)/2‖∇xvh‖2L2(Q).

(25)

By inserting (25) into (24), we have

ah(vh, vh) ≥ ‖vh‖2h − (θC2inv,0C

2u)/2‖∇xvh‖2L2(Q),

≥ (1− (θC2inv,0C

2u)/2)‖vh‖2h ≥

1

2‖vh‖2h,

since θ ≤ (C2inv,0C

2u)−1. This completes the proof of the coercivity. ut

Remark 3 We observe that Lemma 5 is sufficient for well-posedness of thediscrete problem (13). The Lemma 5 implies the uniqueness of the solu-tion uh ∈ V0h. Since the space-time FEM scheme (13) is posed in a finite-dimensional space V0h, the uniqueness yields the existence of the solution.

We need uniform boundedness of the discrete bilinear form ah(·, ·) onV0h,∗ × V0h, where the space V0h,∗ = H1,0

0 (Q) ∩ H2(Q) + V0h is equippedwith the norm

‖v‖h,∗ :=

(‖∇xv‖2L2(Q) + θh‖∂tv‖2L2(Q) +

1

2‖v‖2L2(ΣT ) + θh‖∇xv‖2L2(ΣT )

+ θh∑

Fij∈FI

‖J∇xvKt‖2L2(Fij)+ δθh

∑

Fij∈FI


+ (θh)−1‖v‖2L2(Q) + (θh)2‖∂t∇xv‖2L2(Q) + θh∑

Fij∈FI

‖∇xvup‖2L2(Fij)

+

N∑

i=1

hKi‖∂tv‖2L2(∂Ki)

) 12

. (26)

Lemma 6 The discrete bilinear form ah(·, ·), defined by (14), is uniformlybounded on V0h,∗ × V0h, i.e., there exists a positive constant µb that does notdepend on h such that

|ah(u, vh)| ≤ µb‖u‖h,∗‖vh‖h, ∀u ∈ V0h,∗,∀ vh ∈ V0h. (27)

with µb = maxδ−1C−2inv,0/2, 4 + δ−1/2

1/2, where Cinv,0 is chosen as in

Lemma 3, δ is a positive constant and θ chosen as in Lemma 5.

Proof Let us estimate the bilinear form (14) as follows: for the first term, weapply integration by parts and Cauchy-Schwarz inequality yielding

∫

Q

∂tuvh dxdt = −∫

Q

u∂tvh dxdt+

∫

∂Q

untvh ds

≤(

(θh)−1‖u‖2L2(Q)

)1/2 ((θh)‖∂tvh‖2L2(Q)

)1/2


+(‖u‖2L2(ΣT )

)1/2 (‖vh‖2L2(ΣT )

)1/2. (28)

By using Cauchy Schwarz’s inequality on the following terms, we obtain

θh

∫

ΣT

∇xu · ∇xvh ds ≤(θh‖∇xu‖2L2(ΣT )

)1/2 (θh‖∇xvh‖2L2(ΣT )

)1/2,

θh

∫

Q

∂tu∂tvh dxdt ≤(θh‖∂tu‖2L2(Q)

)1/2 (θh‖∂tvh‖2L2(Q)

)1/2,

∫

Q

∇xu · ∇xvh dxdt ≤(‖∇xu‖2L2(Q)

)1/2 (‖∇xvh‖2L2(Q)

)1/2,

θh∑

K∈Kh

∫

K

∂t∇xu · ∇xvh dxdt ≤(

(θh)2‖∂t∇xu‖2L2(Q)

)1/2 (‖∇xvh‖2L2(Q)

)1/2,

δθh∑

Fij∈FI

∫

Fij

J∂tuKx · J∂tvhKx ds ≤(δθh

∑

Fij∈FI

‖J∂tuKx‖2L2(Fij)

)1/2

×(δθh

∑

Fij∈FI


)1/2

.

Next, we estimate the interface terms using the quasi-uniform assumption (4)and the inverse inequality (20)

θh∑

Fij∈FI

∫

Fij

∇xuup · J∇xvhKt ds

≤(θh

∑

Fij∈FI

‖∇xuup‖2L2(Fij)

)1/2(θh

∑

Fij∈FI

‖J∇xvhKt‖2L2(Fij)

)1/2

≤(θh

∑

Fij∈FI


)1/2(2θCu

N∑

i=1

hKi‖∇xvh,i‖2L2(∂Ki)

)1/2

≤(θh

∑

Fij∈FI


)1/2(2θCuC

2inv,0‖∇xvh‖2L2(Q)

)1/2

, (29)

and

θh∑

Fij∈FI

∫

Fij

∇xvh · J∂tuKx ds

≤(δ−1θh

∑

Fij∈FI

‖∇xvh‖2L2(Fij)

)1/2(δθh

∑

Fij∈FI


)1/2

≤(δ−1

θ

2Cu

N∑

i=1

hKi‖∇xvh,i‖2L2(∂Ki)

)1/2(δθh

∑

Fij∈FI


)1/2


≤(δ−1

θ

2CuC

2inv,0‖∇xvh‖2L2(Q)

)1/2(δθh

∑

Fij∈FI


)1/2

. (30)

The final term is estimated using the quasi-uniform assumption (4) to arriveat

θh∑

Fij∈FI

∫

Fij

∇xu · J∂tvhKx ds

≤(δ−1θh

∑

Fij∈FI

‖∇xu‖2L2(Fij)

)1/2(δθh

∑

Fij∈FI


)1/2

≤(δ−1θCu/2

N∑

i=1

hKi‖∇xui‖2L2(∂Ki)

)1/2(δθh

∑

Fij∈FI


)1/2

.

(31)

Finally, substituting equations (29), (30) and (31) into (14), we get

|ah(u, vh)| ≤(

(θh)−1‖u‖2L2(Q) + ‖u‖2L2(ΣT ) + θh‖∂tu‖2L2(Q) + ‖∇xu‖2L2(Q)

+ θh‖∇xu‖2L2(ΣT ) + (θh)2‖∂t∇xu‖2L2(Q) + θh∑

Fij∈FI


+ δ−1θCu/2N∑

i=1

hKi‖∇xui‖2L2(∂Ki)

+ 2δθh∑

Fij∈FI


)1/2

×(θh‖∂tvh‖2L2(Q) + ‖vh‖2L2(ΣT ) + θh‖∂tvh‖2L2(Q) + 2‖∇xvh‖2L2(Q)

+ θh‖∇xvh‖2L2(ΣT ) + 2θCuC2inv,0‖∇xvh‖2L2(Q)

+ (δ−1θCuC2inv,0)/2‖∇xvh‖2L2(Q) + 2δθh

∑

Fij∈FI


)1/2

≤ µb‖u‖h,∗‖vh‖h,

with µb = max

2(1 + CuC2inv,0 + δ−1θCuC2

inv,0/4), δ−1θCu/21/2

where θ ≤(CuC

2inv,0

)−1. ut

4 A priori discretization error estimates

To derive a priori error estimates, we will require some interpolation resultsfor finite element. Let us recall the following interpolation result, see e.g. [4].

Lemma 7 Let l, d and s be positive integers such that 2 ≤ s ≤ p + 1 withs > (d + 1)/2 and 0 ≤ l ≤ s. Furthermore, let v ∈ Hs(Q) ∩ H1,1

0,0 (Q). Then


there exists a projective operator Πh from H1,10,0 (Q) ∩ Hs(Q) to V0h and a

positive generic constant Cs such that

( ∑

K∈Kh

|v −Πhv|2Hl(K)

)1/2

≤ Cshs−l‖v‖Hs(Q), (32)

where h denotes the maximum mesh-size parameter in the physical domain andthe constant Cs only depends on l, s, p and the shape regularity of the physicaldomain Q.

The interpolation result enables us to derive estimates for terms on theinterior facets.

Lemma 8 Let the assumptions of Lemma 7 hold. Then the following estimateshold

∑

Fij∈FI

h‖J∇x(v −Πhv)Kt‖2L2(Fij)≤ C3h

2(r−1)‖v‖2Hr(Q), (33)

∑

Fij∈FI

h‖∇x(v −Πhv)up‖2L2(Fij)≤ C4h

2(r−1)‖v‖2Hr(Q), (34)

∑

Fij∈FI

δθh‖J∂t(v −Πhv)Kx‖2L2(Fij)≤ C5h

2(r−1)‖v‖2Hr(Q), (35)

where r = mins, p + 1, p denotes the underlying polynomial degree, δ is apositive constant and the generic constants C3, C4 and C5 do not depend onthe mesh element size h.

Proof By using the quasi-uniformity assumption (4), the trace inequality (18),and the approximation property (32), we obtain

∑

Fij∈FI

h‖J∇x(v −Πhv)Kt‖2L2(Fij)

≤ 2CuC2tr

N∑

i=1

hKih−1Ki

(‖∇x(v −Πh,iv)‖2L2(Ki)

+ h2Ki|∇x(v −Πh,iv)|2H1(Ki)

)

≤ 4CsCuC2trh

2(r−1)N∑

i=1

‖v‖2Hr(Ki)= C3h

2(r−1)‖v‖2Hr(Q),

where C3 = 4CsCuC2tr. Using the inequality |aup| ≤ |ai|+ |aj | and following

the proof above, we estimate the next term as follows

∑

Fij∈FI

h‖∇x(v −Πhv)up‖2L2(Fij)

≤ 2CuC2tr

N∑

i=1

hKih−1Ki

(‖∇x(v −Πh,iv)‖2L2(Ki)

+ h2Ki|∇x(v −Πh,iv)|2H1(Ki)

)


≤ 4CsCuC2trh

2(r−1)N∑

i=1

‖v‖2Hr(Ki)= C4h

2(r−1)‖v‖2Hr(Q),

where C4 = 4CsCuC2tr. We obtain the final estimate following the techniques

in the proof above as follows∑

Fij∈FI

δθh‖J∂t(v −Πhv)Kx‖2L2(Fij)

≤ 2δθCuC2tr

N∑

i=1

hKih−1Ki

(‖∂t(v −Πh,iv)‖2L2(Ki)

+ h2Ki|∂t(v −Πh,iv)|2H1(Ki)

)

≤ 4δθCuC2trCsh

2(r−1)N∑

i=1

‖v‖2Hr(Ki)= C5h

2(r−1)‖v‖2Hr(Q),

where C5 = 4δθCuC2trCs. ut

Lemma 9 Let d and s be positive integers with 2 ≤ s ≤ p + 1, s > (d +1)/2 and let v ∈ Hs(Q) ∩ H1,1

0,0 (Q). Then, there exists a projection Πh from

H1,10,0 (Q) ∩Hs(Q) to V0h and generic positive constants C6 and C7 such that

‖v −Πhv‖h ≤ C6hr−1‖v‖Hr(Q), (36)

‖v −Πhv‖h,∗ ≤ C7hr−1‖v‖Hr(Q), (37)

where h is the mesh-size in the physical domain, r = mins, p+ 1, p denotesthe underlying polynomial degree, and the generic constants C6 and C7 do notdepend on h and v.

Proof Using the discrete norms as defined in (22) and (26) together withLemma 8, we complete the proof of the statement. ut

Finally, we present the main result for the article, namely the a priori errordiscretization error estimate in the discrete norm ‖ · ‖h.Theorem 2 Let s and p be positive integers with 2 ≤ s ≤ p + 1 and s >(d+ 1)/2. Further, let u ∈ H1,0

0,0 (Q)∩Hs(Q) be the exact solution of our modelproblem (2), and let uh ∈ V0h be the solution to the FEM scheme (13). Thenthe discretization error estimate

‖u− uh‖h ≤ Chr−1‖u‖Hr(Q), (38)

holds, where C is a generic positive constant, r = mins, p+1, and p denotesthe underlying polynomial degree.

Proof By using the coercivity result of Lemma 5, the Galerkin orthogonality(17) and the boundedness of the discrete bilinear form, i.e. Lemma 6, we canderive the following estimates

µc‖Πhu− uh‖2h ≤ ah(Πhu− uh, Πhu− uh) = ah(Πhu− u,Πhu− uh)


≤ µb‖Πhu− u‖h,∗‖Πhu− uh‖h.

Hence, we have

‖Πhu− uh‖h ≤ (µb/µc)‖Πhu− u‖h,∗. (39)

Using (39) together with the estimates (37) and (36) from Lemma 9, we have

‖u− uh‖h ≤ ‖u−Πhu‖h + ‖Πhu− uh‖h≤ ‖u−Πhu‖h + (µb/µc)‖Πhu− u‖h,∗≤ (C6 + C7(µb/µc))h

r−1‖u‖Hr(Q),

with C = (C6 + C7(µb/µc)). ut

Remark 4 In practice, the assumption s > (d+1)/2 imposed on the regularityis restrictive. In such a case, the domain decomposition of the space-timecylinder is required as presented in [11,12] for the space-time discontinuousGalerkin (dG) using Non uniform rational B-splines (NURBS). Also, the errorestimate in Theorem 2 can be further analyzed for the mesh element as follows

‖u− uh‖h ≤ C( ∑

K∈Kh

h2(r−1)K ‖u‖2Hr(K)

)1/2

, (40)

where hK is the mesh size of the mesh element K. Such an error estimate(40) is particularly relevant for developing Adaptive Finite Element Method(AFEM) space-time scheme.

5 Numerical Results

We present in this section some numerical experiments to validate the theoret-ical estimates presented in Section 4. The examples considered are motivatedby [10, Section 5], where the authors used Isogeometric Analysis (IgA). Thenumerical results have been performed in FreeFem++ [5]. We will consider adeforming space-time domain with polygonal surface area Σ as illustrated inFigure 2. By using unstructured mesh with p = 1 and p = 2 polynomial degreecontinuous finite elements, we compute the error in the discrete norm ‖ · ‖h.The resulting linear system is solved using GMRES without preconditioning.We chose the positive parameters θ = 0.1 and δ = 10 in all our numericalexperiments.

5.1 Example I

We consider the space-time domain Q := Ω(t) × [0, 1] ⊂ R2 where Ω(t) =x ∈ R : a(t) < x < b(t) with t = (0, 1), a(t) = −t/2 and b(t) = 1 +t/2, see Figure 2. The exact solution for the model problem (1) is given byu(x, t) = sin(πx) sin(πt). The volume density f and the initial data u0 = 0


Fig. 2 Moving spatial domains with underlying unstructured mesh.

on Σ are resolved accordingly. By successive mesh refinements using piecewiselinear (p = 1) and piecewise quadratic (p = 2) continuous finite element, theconvergence behavior with respect to the discrete norm ‖ · ‖h can be seenin Figure 3 (right). The solution contours uh can be seen in Figure 3. Sincethe exact solution is smooth, we expect optimal convergence rate O(hp) forpolynomial degrees p ≥ 1 as predicted by Theorem 2.

101

102

103

104

105

10−4

10−3

10−2

10−1

100

Degree of Freedom

Err

or

Es

tim

ate

Error estimate versus Degree of Freedom

p = 1

p = 2

2

1

1

1

Fig. 3 Solution contours in the space-time cylinder Q (left) and the plot of the errorestimates for degrees p = 1 and p = 2.

5.2 Example II

We consider again the space-time domain Q := Ω(t)× [0, 1] ⊂ R2 as describedin Example 5.1. In this example, the exact solution for the model problem(1) is given by u(x, t) = (1 − t)1/2 sin(πx) and has a singularity at t = 1.


The volume density f and the initial data u0 are resolved accordingly. Theexact solution u(x, t) belongs to the space H1−ε(Q) for any ε > 0. By succes-sive mesh refinements using piecewise linear (p = 1) and piecewise quadratic(p = 2) continuous finite element, the convergence behavior with respect tothe discrete norm ‖ · ‖h can be seen in Figure 4 (right). The solution contoursuh can be seen in Figure 4 (left). Using Theorem 2, we expect a convergencerate of zero i.e. O(h0). However, we observe a convergence rate of O(h0.5)for polynomial degrees p ≥ 1. This is because the solution has a singularityonly in time and a full regularity in space. For the linear polynomial degree(p = 1), we obtain a convergence rate of 0.75 while for the quadratic poly-nomial degree (p = 2), we obtain the expected convergence rate of 0.5. Forthe quadratic polynomial degree, we are in the asymptotic range faster thanthe linear polynomial degree, thus yielding the expected rate in the numericalexperiments. The numerical results confirm similar results obtained by usingspace-time discontinuous Galerkin FEM as presented in [13, Example 2.3.3].

101

102

103

104

105

10−2

10−1

100

Degree of Freedom

Err

or

Esti

mate

Error Estimate versus Degree of Freedom

p = 1

p = 2

1

0.75

1

0.5

Fig. 4 Solution contours in the space-time cylinder Q (left) and the plot of the errorestimates for degrees p = 1 and p = 2.

Conclusion

In this article, we have presented a new stable space-time finite element schemefor parabolic evolution problems on arbitrary space-time domains. We havepresented a priori error estimates and numerical examples in the space-timedomain Q ⊂ R2 using continuous finite element approximations with poly-nomial degrees p = 1 and p = 2. For the smooth solution u considered inSubsection 5.1, we have observed the optimal convergence rates as predictedby Theorem 2. However, for non-smooth input data, the solutions have lessregularity and thus the a priori error estimate obtained in Theorem 2 doesnot yield the optimal convergence rate or cannot be applied as observed in


Subsection 5.2. An appropriate understanding of the behavior of such non-smooth solutions will be to consider anisotropic Sobolev spaces. The new re-sults present the possibility for space-time adaptivity in moving domains, alsothe possibility to use preconditioning, fast solvers like multi-grid and domaindecomposition solvers.

Acknowledgment

The author appreciates the constructive comments from the reviewer whichhelped improve the article.

References

1. I. Babuska and T. Janik. The h-p version of the finite element method for parabolic equa-tions. I. The p-version in time. Numer. Methods Partial Differential Equations, 5(4):363–399, 1989.

2. I. Babuska and T. Janik. The h-p version of the finite element method for parabolicequations. II. The h-p version in time. Numer. Methods Partial Differential Equations,6(4):343–369, 1990.

3. R. E. Bank, P. S. Vassilevski, and L. T. Zikatanov. Arbitrary dimension convection-diffusion schemes for spacetime discretizations. Journal of Computational and AppliedMathematics, 310:19 – 31, 2017. Numerical Algorithms for Scientific and EngineeringApplications.

4. S. C. Brenner and R. Scott. The Mathematical Theory of Finite Element Methods. Textsin Applied Mathematics. Springer, 2008.

5. F. Hecht. New development in freefem++. J. Numer. Math., 20(3-4):251–265, 2012.

6. T. J. R. Hughes and G. M. Hulbert. Space-time finite element methods for elastodynam-ics: Formulations and error estimates. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 66(3):339–363,feb 1988.

7. C. Johnson. Numerical solution of partial differential equations by the finite elementmethod. Dover Publications, Inc., Mineola, NY, 2009. Reprint of the 1987 edition.

8. O. A. Ladyzhenskaya, V. A. Solonnikov, and N. N. Uraltseva. Linear and QuasilinearEquations of Parabolic Type. Nauka, Moscow, 1967. In Russian. Translated in AMS,Providence, RI, 1968.

9. U. Langer, S. Matculevich, and S. Repin. A posteriori error estimates for space-time iga approximations to parabolic initial boundary value problems. arxiv, (2017-14),https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.08998.

10. U. Langer, S. E. Moore, and M. Neumuller. Space-time isogeometric analysis ofparabolic evolution equations. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 306:342–363, 2016.

11. S. E. Moore. Nonstandard Discretization Strategies In Isogeometric Analysis for PartialDifferential Equations. PhD thesis, Johannes Kepler University, January 2017.

12. S. E. Moore. Space-time multipatch discontinuous galerkin isogeometric analysis forparabolic evolution problem. arxiv, 2017.

13. M. Neumuller. Space-Time Methods: Fast Solvers and Applications, volume 20 of Mono-graphic Series TU Graz: Computation in Engineering and Science. TU Graz, 2013.

14. D. Schotzau and C. Schwab. An hp a priori error analysis of the dg time-steppingmethod for initial value problems. Calcolo, 37(4):207–232, 2000.

15. C. Schwab and R. Stevenson. Space–time adaptive wavelet methods for parabolic evo-lution problems. Math. Comput., 78:1293–1318, 2009.

16. O. Steinbach. Space-time finite element methods for parabolic problems. Comput. Meth.Appl. Math., 15(4):551–566, 2015.


17. T. E. Tezduyar, M. Behr, S. Mittal, and J. .Liou. A new strategy for finite ele-ment computations involving moving boundaries and interfaces—the deforming-spatial-domain/space-time procedure. I: The concept and the preliminary numerical tests. Com-put. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 94(3):339–351, 1992.

18. T. E. Tezduyar, M. Behr, S. Mittal, and J. Liou. A new strategy for finite ele-ment computations involving moving boundaries and interfaces—the deforming-spatial-domain/space-time procedure: II. Computation of free-surface flows, two-liquid flows, andflows with drifting cylinders. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 94(3):353–371, 1992.

19. V. Thomee. Galerkin Finite Element Methods for Parabolic Problems (Springer Seriesin Computational Mathematics). Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, USA,2006.

Noname manuscript No. - arXiv · 3 Stable space-time nite element method Let K h be a decomposition...

Documents

Transcript of Noname manuscript No. - arXiv · 3 Stable space-time nite element method Let K h be a decomposition...